U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay speaks with St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson after a news conference on Friday, June 28, 2019, at St. Louis Children’s Hospital in St. Louis. Clay, a Democrat, discussed a bill he co-sponsored with U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Illinois, that would allow cities to enact stronger gun laws than their states. Clay said that 43 states currently prohibit cities from enacting stricter gun laws. (AP Photo by Jim Salter)

Preemption laws have become the target of anti-gun politicians, gun control organizations and their cheerleaders in the media. Local pols who want to impose their own special brand of civilian disarmament in the cities they control are frustrated that they’ve been thwarted by their states’ preemption laws, which prevent a patchwork of regulations that would make compliance a nightmare for lawful gun owners.

Preemption is currently in place in 43 states. Two prominent examples where state preemption laws have come under attack are Florida and Pennsylvania.

In the former Gunshine State, a push was made following the Parkland shooting to invalidate preemption via the courts.

A lawsuit was filed by gun-grabbing city officials to effectively invalidate preemption. They’re challenging the constitutionality of the legal penalties imposed on them should they violate the law. The case is currently winding its way through the courts.

Florida since 1987 has barred cities and counties from passing regulations that are stricter than state firearms laws. But in 2011, lawmakers went further by approving a series of penalties that local governments and officials can face if they violate the prohibition.

Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson did not immediately rule on the constitutionality of the law, giving attorneys until 5 p.m. Thursday to file written proposed orders. The challenge by 33 cities and counties has drawn briefs from gun-control groups and the National Rifle Association, which is supporting the state’s defense of the penalties.

In a motion for summary judgment filed in February, attorneys for the cities and counties contended that the penalties are unconstitutional in a number of ways, including violating separation of powers and free-speech rights. The case focuses mostly on the penalties, though it also raises arguments about vagueness of the underlying law that bars cities and counties from passing gun regulations — what is known as a “preemption” law.

In the Keystone state, the effort to invalidate preemption started after the Tree of Life synagogue shooting. Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto has openly flouted Pennsylvania’s preemption restrictions, signing a series of gun control measures into law that are in direct violation of the state statute.

“If Washington and Harrisburg refuse to recognize this is a public health emergency, and refuse to stand up to gun manufacturers, then we must take action to challenge laws and protect our people,” said Peduto in a press release.

Peduto’s signature led to a swift attack from his critics on Twitter and a lawsuit from the National Rifle Association. But the strongest criticism came from state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Cranberry).

Metcalfe shared on social media that he was drafting legislation to have Peduto impeached as a result of his “illegal gun ordinances.”

Now, in an escalation of the anti-preemption push, the front in the fight for more local gun control has moved to the federal level. Missouri Rep. William Lacy Clay, who inherited his 1st congressional district seat from his father, is trying to use the cudgel of withholding federal funds in order to pressure states to repeal their preemption laws.

Clay’s bill would cut off Department of Justice public safety grants to any state that has the restrictions in place.

Here’s the Associated Press’s report on Clay’s bill . . .

By Jim Salter

Democratic U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay is introducing a bill aimed at reducing gun violence in urban areas like his hometown of St. Louis, but it faces a difficult path to becoming law with a Republican-led Senate and White House.

Clay said Friday that he is confident that his bill, the Local Public Health and Safety Protection Act, can pass Congress. It likely would face strong opposition from largely conservative state legislatures such as Missouri’s, as well as gun rights advocates. Messages seeking comment from Republican Gov. Mike Parson and from the NRA were not immediately returned.

The measure, co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Illinois, would require any state receiving U.S. Department of Justice public safety grants to allow cities to enact their own gun laws. Missouri is currently among 43 states that prohibit cities from having gun laws stricter than their states, Clay said.

The measure is among many changes needed to address the epidemic of gun violence in cities, Clay said.

“In St. Louis and across the nation, we are faced with an ugly, obscene inescapable truth: Gun violence is a public health emergency,” Clay said. “I’m tired of the violence, I’m tired of the excuses, and I’m tired of our state legislature being either unable or too frightened to do something about gun violence because they’re being held hostage by the NRA (National Rifle Association).”

Democratic St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson, anti-violence activists and top health care leaders stood alongside Clay at a news conference at St. Louis Children’s Hospital to show support for the proposal.

St. Louis Children’s Hospital Chief Medical Officer Dr. Alexis Elward said the facility’s trauma center has treated more than 40 children this year who were critically injured or died from gunshot wounds. Five children have died in shootings in St. Louis this month alone.

Elward said even children who survive the bullets often suffer life-changing harm.

“I’m also a mom,” Elward said. “I am concerned about our community.”

St. Louis typically has one of the highest murder rates in the nation, and June has been a particularly deadly month with 19 homicides so far. For the year, 89 people have been murdered in the city of just over 300,000.

Eighty of the 89 victims were black. St. Louis Public Safety Director Jimmie Edwards said most of the shooters also were black.

“The state legislative bodies have decided that is not important,” Edwards said.

Clay said the bill would allow cities to enact laws such as those requiring background checks, restricting the quantity and type of ammunition, and prohibiting the sale of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines.

Krewson grew up in the small town of Moberly, Missouri. She said urban areas like St. Louis face challenges “that are separate and distinct from other parts of the state.”

“We need this in the city of St. Louis,” Krewson said.

comments

Fortunately, this would be all sorts of unconstitutional and would get struck down in the courts before it could ever go into effect. That’s assuming it ever passed the house, let alone the senate, let alone got signed into law by the orange dipshit, which it will not.

As far as unconstitutional goes, all of the gun control laws qualify as unconstitutional. This is the Pandora’s box that was opened when they started to make exceptions to constitutional protected rights. The only chance to change these and other unconstitutional encroachments to our rights is thru the Convention of States that will reset the laws back to the Founding Fathers constitution and impose term limits to elected officials. Would like to see a yearly congressional term set to 3 months per year. Our country would be much safer this way and we could cut salaries to a fraction of what they are now. These jobs would be part time.

The problem with a constitutional convention is that it would open an even bigger Pandora’s box. For example, the leftists would love to repeal the Bill of Rights. A constitutional convention would give them the opening to propose just that. Fortunately, the states that have gone fully or nearly constitutional carry would likely refuse to ratify something so extreme. There are more than enough of them to block indefinitely any amendment they dislike.

Our best hope is a more conservative US Supreme Court. Another Trump appointee would change the balance of the court from neutral to conservative. To block him, none of the leftist justices will retire before the election of a Democratic president. Does anyone remember the 1960s movie, El Cid? At the end, after Charlton Heston dies of his wounds, his corpse is propped up on a horse and sent out at the front of the Christian army. The Moors, thinking he has risen from the dead, freak out and run. I wouldn’t be surprised if RBG has left comparable instructions.

Correct. when the founders called a confederation convention it ended in not a update to the Articles of Confederation but a whole new Constitution, the one we currently have,if called the entire Constitution is open for change or replacement.

James Madison’s letter to Tuberville and thoughts of calling a Article V,Constitutional convention also known these days as a Con- Con.

You haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. Any convention, per the constitution, convenes on the question before the states. That is, they get to vote on that one thing, and that one thing only. If you really think that once the convention is called the whole constitution is up for grabs, you need a refresher in 6th grade civics, because no such thing is allowed. Furthermore, if you think 2/3rds of the states are apt to invalidate the bill of rights you aren’t even remotely aware of the current state of politics in the US.

If my 10yo were as ignorant as you are of the constitution I’d be ashamed.

@Ardent
You are incorrect. Please go read the history of the last convention that was called to ONLY propose amendments. Then please read Article V of the Constitution. A convention may propose any amendments to the Constitution, including total replacement, if the members of said convention so choose. Secondly, under the current Constitution it takes 3/4 of the State legislatures or state conventions to ratify the proposals. Those legislatures / conventions have ratified amendments that have been (are) detrimental to the people before, and there is no reason to believe that they can’t or won’t do so again.

I’m afraid a more conservative supreme court won’t be the holy grail we hope it to be. If Democrats gain control of congress and the White House they have every intention to increase the number of supreme court justices to pack the court with leftist judges. Several leftist congress-critters have already said as much.

It’s unconstitutional for reasons beyond the 2A. It is not constitutional to withhold unrelated funds to coerce states into adopting a political agenda, particularly when talking about over 80% of states.

He had his ATF illegally rewrite federal statutes so he can ban bump stocks. He was chumming it up with Feinstein, grinning ear to ear and proclaiming he’d “take the guns first, then due process.” He was musing the other day about banning suppressors.

He’s no friend to gun owners. If he thinks it’ll make him look good, under the bus we go.

Subscribe to the Trump White House on Facebook, I routinely comment on posts put out by them that if he doesn’t support gun rights why not vote Democrat at least they’ll do something about global warming.”

I know his narcissistic ass reads the shit and if enough of us do it he’ll get the point. My comments usually get about thirty or forty likes. Much more subtle than a petition.

I say let them. For now. The legal shit-fight that ensues will end up in the Supreme Court, and with the current make up of the court, we know how it would come out. If we’re VERY lucky, we might even end up with federal preemption, so that gun laws are the same from one coast to the other.

^ And when you’re shot by some goon squad for refusing to obey your overlords (e.g., for not wanting to give the house you paid for to people who didn’t work to buy their own home), that of course won’t count as gun violence. At that point, pretense won’t really matter anymore, though I’m sure they’ll keep it up anyway.

How about a federal preemtion law. We could call it the Second Amendment. And we could make another law saying that whatever powers weren’t given to the federal government would be left to the states (not municipalities). We’ll call that the Tenth Amendment. Someone get this down, I think I’m on to something…

You definitely are onto something and I say keep it up. Also, let’s look at the root of the problem. It’s not the guns that are violent, it’s the people. As long as there are people on this Earth there will be violence, whether it’s guns, knives, automobiles, rocks, bats, pipes, Antifa, or what have you. In St Louis they mentioned there had been 89 homicides so far this year. 80 of them were blacks & most of the shooters were blacks. I don’t know about you, but let’s be truthful here. Let’s say what people are scared to say but must be said, and it’s not racist, it’s the facts. The majority of gun violence seems to be committed by blacks against blacks. Maybe this problem should be dealt with first.

This is true. It’s also true that the suicide rate among whites is twice as high as it is among blacks. And in Japan twice as high as among American whites. And in Honduras the homicide rate is 20 times as high as in the USA. These and many other anomalies are ripe for investigation. Is it nature or nurture? Nobody will ever know because the answers won’t help the communists subvert the Constitution.

well, all the colors are represented, but more or less, yes.
the problem would largely go away if we honored Liberty where drugs are concerned.
It’s not like they are effectively stopping the influx of drugs, but they sure have militarized the police over it.

You be hot, Gov.
While you are at it, solve that killin’ thingy.
How about a law. “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” There, that will do it.
Oops, the Big Guy tried that. Didn’t work.
Well how about man give it a try…… Murder 1; Murder2; Manslaughter; negligent homicide,…..
there, that’ll surely do it. man has got the answer.
Oops, tried those, didn’t work.
Well, let’s write laws to control the method of killing rather than the act.
Let’s write 20,000+ laws restricting just guns alone. there that’ll surely do it. See a politician always has a law to cure every problem.
Ooops, those didn’t work. Well, we need just one more stupid law by a stupid Congressman. enter, lacey Clay. Yeah, he be got de answer. there that’ll do it.
You can by now write the next lines…..Ooops, didn’t work……well, we just need more laws……
A politician with a law never stops a bad guy with a gun.
He only controls the good guys, which is his true agenda.
“Killing is a matter of will. You cannot control the act by passing laws governing the methods.” the Late Col Jeff Cooper, 1958.

Their definition of free speech, like their definitions of many concepts, are both changeable and opaque.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

How about a law that says if you have a State-issued permission slip to exercise your Second Amendment protected rights you are REQUIRED to open-carry your pistol at least one day per month, your choice.

It might help if the average citizen on the street got a reality check on how many of their neighbors legally and lawfully carry firearms.

“It might help if the average citizen on the street got a reality check on how many of their neighbors legally and lawfully carry firearms.”

Most of us, for generations, always concealed our sidearms. Somehow, this became an issue so cries for concealed handgun licensing went up. Myself and others disagreed; pointing out that we needed only to remove the little bit of Ohio law that prohibited the action. Out of sight, out of mind is powerful so a good portion of Ohioans had no clue as to how many of us were already carrying. Since licensing laws in Ohio became a thing, many of us open carry. Among other things, it is a great reminder to the sheep.

Nobody has to wait; OC now if it is doable in your area. We should’ve been doing that for generations in Ohio. Then, we wouldn’t have to fight to get back to constitutional carry. We would’ve already been there.

89 murdered. 80 were black children. Shot by other black children. Who by law could not own the weapon they used. So explain to me how passing laws that would make it more difficult if not impossible for me to own a gun would prevent young black gang members from killing each other over turf or being dissed?
Take their guns and they will use things like machetes or hammers or knives to kill. They need to find a way to convince these kids that turf or your gang are not worth dying over. But that would take dads being in the picture I suppose.

And I guess some of our fellow Floriduh politicians want to get back to the good old days like in the movie Porkies where each county was its own fiefdom. And most of the politicians were democrats.

City background checks, limits on sales, etc. won’t do anything to stop the scoundrels from just buying outside the city. It’s pure “gun violence prevention” theater, with inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners as a fringe benefit.

These idiots need to be held accountable for treason. Either that, or they need to gather and attempt succession already, because it will never happen without war. Now who do you think will win that battle? Willing to bet the military and police forces would be like “nah, fuck that.”

As every third world shithole can attest, there will always be people seeking power and pay to fight against you.

I welcome a correction; by force if necessary. I think such a conflict is inevitable if we are to remain a free people. But, I don’t have any fantasies that government won’t be able to fill its ranks with thugs, murderers, and sociopaths. Until it is clear that government is on the losing side, there will be no shortage of fodder.

So, in essence, the left wants to invalidate, by statute, the concept of a federal republic and the idea of a state. The left wants to turn the states into provinces, subject to their obstinate levels of capriciousness.

Forget the politic niceties and PC, his face should be broken. He should have the crap kicked out him for that kind of thought! And people wonder why I think the 17th amendment taking the appointment of senators from the was the worst political mistake of the 1st half of the 20th century. And anybody like some jackass a few months ago who wanted to argue against the states having that power, welp, you maybe shouldn’t be trusted to vote.

There’s a certain poetic irony in trying to pass a federal bill that takes legislative discretion away from a state legislature because they were taking legislative discretion away from city councils.

Because it’s not bad enough that you have to check the laws in 50 states before you travel as they’re all different but now our esteemed legislators (well, some of them) want you to accidentally become a criminal by crossing a (usually unmarked) municipal border. Great idea.

If the 2nd Amendment means something different in Coschocton than it does in Cleveland, does the 1st mean something different in Lakewood than in Lorain? Does the 13th allow slavery in Dearborn but not Detroit?

Hmm here is another thought that just occured to me. Does Rep. Clay (for brains) realize were the vast majority of that fed $ goes? Thats right the gun banning big cities. So this twit doesn’t even realize that if. his bright idea gets through it derails some of the libs vote buying gravy train.

Term limits would be a great idea, 2 local, 2 state, 2 federal, never more than 2 terms at any level, and never more than one district at any level, ever. Plus, make the amendment state that the reps salaries may be no more than the mean salary from their district.
Furthermore, any law for which there is no victim other than self, there is no crime.
Further furthermore, this needs to happen AFTER about 40M of us demo what the 2A is actually for.

Welcome to agenda 21 (or whatever they recently changed the name to). The slogan “think globally, act locally” has a good feel to it, but what they really mean (and intend) is to implement global collectivist authoritarianism from the ground up to by-pass state and federal Constitutions.

Lacey Clay – D-MO is a real piece of work. The only person who has benefited from Clay being in Congress is….Lacey Clay. Hey, Clay, it’s not the guns; it’s the Defective Citizens in your Congressional District. Your Democrat party has created these Defective Citizens through a history of KKK, Jim Crowe Laws, breaking down the black family unit, etc. Clay’s party took blacks off the Cotton Plantation and put them on the Government Plantation….along with a lot of non-blacks. Dems realized that there is more money, power, and control in Government than cotton, and someone else could be taxed to pay for the shanty shacks, collard greens and sow belly, and whoop the Little people into line……and the Dems would get the black vote. What a plan!!!! Ban Defective Citizens rather than inanimate objects, and make the parents….if you can identify them…..fortunate for DNA…..responsible for creating those Defective Citizens. Clay needs to be brought home to his District and turned loose on those streets without his hired protection squad.

The bill (to withdraw federal funds from states that don’t behave) is an excellent example of why we should all question the practice of federal subsidies to states.

Let’s concede that there must be many worthy causes to which the feds might contribute. But at what cost to our system of “federal government”?

Why do we have our system of many states managing local affairs with a central “federal” government concentrating on national and international affairs? Why didn’t we adopt a purely central government – as did France – where the municipalities are merely branch-offices of the singular central power structure? Answering these questions is fundamental; structural.

With each $1 sent from Washington to a state’s capital we incrementally inch toward a singular central power structure. A structure with a de facto single source of “truth”; with no means of discovering, disproving, the reality of that truth. There is value in the notion of a “single source of truth”; e.g., the measure of weight established by a single artifact such as the platinum ingot that establishes the weight of the kilogram. And yet, in this example, scientists have discovered that that singular artifact is losing weight (as revealed by the fact that it is getting lighter compared to supposedly identical ingots called “witnesses” that seem to agree in their respective weights.)

Let it be that some states will error in exercising their “states’ rights” to govern their residents. We can discover these errors by comparing their results to those of other states that have different laws.

The “trick” – the difficult task – is to apply the federal Constitution to the acts of the several states. How to apply the rights of speech, arms, quartering troops, search, seizure, indictment by a grand jury, and so forth to the distinctive peoples of the several states?

I see no simple answer to such questions. Still, I am disturbed that the feds try to impose a single-source-of-truth by doling-out/withholding cash to states and their municipalities on questions that ought to be discernible from our federalist Constitution: the meaning of “the right” “of the People” to “arms”; the power of Congress to establish a uniform law of “naturalization” (and, by implication, immigration).

Our judiciary is supposed to act as a referee in enforcing the rule-of-law (including the Constitution). Is this institution (the judiciary) up to challenge of policing how Congress will purchase the compliance of state and municipal officials with subsidies?

If we the People think not (i.e., conclude that the judiciary can’t police federal subsidies) then we ought to start thinking about reeling-in this back-door (federal subsidies) that centralize power.

It is far beyond time for the States to begin sending money to Washington with stipulations and controls for receiving. States should keep money at home and only fund what the Constitution grants power to Washington.

To receive a dollar from the Feds, someone has to send $5 to them. Then, the Feds skim, scam, and squander $2, and use $2 to buy votes via free shit. Then, send the $1 back with all kinds of stipulations and controls. States should flip this control mechanism. Keep all tax dollars collected within their borders and only send to Washington what the Constitution grants Washington power to perform….and attach stipulations and controls to the money sent to Washington. Strangle Washington into Constitutional compliance.

“How dare the State tell Cities what laws they can pass, let’s have the Feds tell the States what laws they can pass!”
And if that doesn’t work, we’ll have the UN tell the Feds what laws they can pass.

If the law I researched is true federal law trumps(fortunate occurrence)state and local law. The highest law of the land is the constitution. The constitution states see second amendment. All laws modifying that are illegal.